- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:20:16 -0500
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 16:53 +0200, Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: [...] > But I do not understand what using a "holds" predicate would add (I > guess it is related to the semantics of a RDF triple, but how?). It allows semantics of RDFS and some of OWL to be expressed in RIF rules, as I explained in my message of 25 Sep 2006 Re: [RIF] Extensible Design: Horn semantics and syntax... RDF/OWL integration conventions http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0073.html Here's a sketch of an entailment test case. Premises: In an RDF/OWL/turtle document: ex:bob ex:loves ex:cheese. ex:loves rdfs:subPropertyOf ex:likes. In a RIF document: holds(rdfs:subPropertyOf, ?p, ?q) /\ holds(?p, ?s ?o) => holds(?q, ?s ?o) Conclusion: in turtle: ex:bob ex:likes ex:cheese. and/or perhaps in RIF: holds(ex:likes, ex:bob, ex:cheese) Does the issues list cover the deliverable "on using this rule interchange format in combination with OWL"? Ah yes... http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products/8 Currently no actions/issues there. I suggest the holds predicate issue should go there. Shall I add it? I don't see documentation of who is supposed to raise new issues. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 15:20:33 UTC